JohNeo

Atheism doesn't make any promises. Religion does.

JohNeo

The AntiChris

Of course. If I didn't think there were consequences I wouldn't be here arguing with you.

I'm not suggesting that that the eradication of religious belief would cure all the world's ills but I do think that it makes sense to eliminate a major source of human stupidity in the world today.
Trouble is you can't disentagle the two if you want to maintain credibility.

Let me explain. Your child complains that an invisible ogre lives under his bed and that it is trying to harm him. Do you, in the spirit of tolerating beliefs which cannot be disproven, tell the child that you accept that there may be an invisible ogre under his bed but that he is mistaken in thinking it has malevolent intent?

The problem is that having accepted the concept of an 'ogre', the child is unlikely to be convinced by your attempts to 'rationalise' its benevolence. Similarly, once you accept the possibility of a God (and all that that entails) the christian is perfectly justified in claiming that his God is quite capable of creating an Earth which, despite only being 6,000 years old, has all the appearance of a much older world.

The point being that as soon as you accept an irrational proposition, you weaken any justification for returning to rationality simply because it suits you.

Chris

DBT

That's right,it is strange that we use critical thinking skills in all our practical activity in life but then when it comes to religion that skill seems to vanish and we become wide eyed believers. :banghead:

badger3k

Add in politics to that, and you have the "two that shall not be discussed among friends" of old. Both situations (and sports teams sometimes) seem to bring out the worst in people.

Stacey Melissa

I don't know.

Secular Elation

I do not fully disagree. But just as having a narcotics problem brings with it (often) an inability to escape it, so it is with religion. Both are dangerous, and both have their victims depending on it.

However, I find your narcotic analogy rather crude. Narcotics is a physiological issue, whereas religion is psychological, emotional, and philosophical. We greatly disagree with the philosophies inherent in religion, and the emotional "pleasure" it brings. But there are many other people who are dependant on it. It has formed the basis of their lives. Is that a bad thing? Well, I say yes and no. It's bad because people believe in a false doctrine that can sometimes lead them to bizarre and dangerous behavior. But it's good in the sense that it gives some people "meaning" and to be a part of something bigger than themselves, even though you and I strongly digress with that opinion. But the fact is, atheism is not for everyone, regardless of how good or bad religion is. We can make efforts to deconvert people, and we may encounter varying degrees of success, but I wager that we are incapable of deconverting absolutely every human being if we tried to.

You express the sort of die-hard anti-religious attitude that many atheists have, that religion is an absolute, thoroughly despicable thing that brings harm to every person under its spell. I must disagree with that. There are many sane religious people extant in the world today, who are no worse human beings than any other normal, good-willed citizen who may or may not be religious. Such people aren't experiencing the excruciating agoines equivalent to the narcotic addict in your analogy. It is true that religion has caused many extreme evils in ancient and modern history. But this is not an effect inherent in every religious circle. Although, I would agree that for what evil it does create, it is very horrible, and enough to warrant every effort to eradicate it out of human culture.

Regardless, I don't think a 100% deconverted world would suddenly become a utopia. But we may never know anyway.

JohNeo

I sometimes find myself thinking that somehow removing religion would solve the world's problems and think that deconversion would bring the same kind of joy to others that it brought to me.

Then I think about the near-deconversion experience I had in college, which was accompanied by anxiety and depression. I would not wish that on most people. I realize that for many others, religion is a symptom and not necessarily a cause of their problems.

I know I am wishy-washy on the issue--I would still rather see religion go away but my practical side tells me that in the absence of religion there would always be some form of deceit. Magic shows, psychics, business pyramid schemes, conspiracy theories--I think all of these are indicators that people have a hard time dealing with reality and will go to great lengths to delude themselves. Religion is just one of these tools. Perhaps religion would simply evolve into idealogical nationalism in the absence of a supernatural godhead.

Overall, the few months of freedom I've had from religion have made me appreciate life a lot more. If people are able to overcome the shock and depression that losing religion may bring about in order to achieve freedom of thought and choice, then mass deconversion is worth trying. My main struggle with deconverting early this year was how I was going to fit in with friends and family. Based on this, I propose that as more people deconvert, there would probably be less fear of marginalization and so people might be more willing to let go.

JohNeo

badger3k

Edited to address that point. The problem is when religion becomes the main focus of their life, rather than life itself. It's like anything else that can be taken too far. We look at the ones who spend nights in "Bible Study" and think of how they are wasting their lives. Then there are days where I spend all day playing Vice City. Which is more wasteful?

I don't think there is any one thing in this world that is "for everyone". Whether it is genetics or something else, people are different. It's like food. Some people like Tacos, others like Sushi, and some just like Steak. Saying atheism is for everyone is like saying we should all eat sushi. Or drink Coke.

edit - missed the whole explanation. I see the cause (or the problem itself) being really visible in such situations (if that makes sense). The person who prays while flying (out of fear) is not so different than the person who drinks for the same reason.

Biff the unclean

Which would appear, then, to make it three times as bad as dope.
Hence my (lifted from Marx) analogy to narcotic
That is what they claim but even a cursory examination shows that to be false. It steals all the meaning from their lives (just look at the contempt our resident Xians hold themselves and mankind in) and replaces that meaning with advertising sloganst for their religion is.
The best way to get off drugs is to never do them to begin with. Same goes for religion. The question of this thread has nothing to do with "deconverting" people. It's "is Atheism for everyone?"

Narcotic addicts feel no pain at all. That's the point to taking narcotics, they make you feel wonderful…so long as you don't try to stop.
Tell me which religious circles are not supported by the money of their addicts
I didn't claim it would be. Nor do I claim if narcotic addiction were eradicated that there would suddenly be a utopia.
I just do not condone victimizing innocent people.
The difference between armed robbery and a con game, like religion, is that the victims of cons feel good about losing their money and their freedom. It doesn't mean that it isn't a crime

0

Depends on the religion.

Tangie